Olbermann Asked To Tone Down Hillary Hate, Refused

From a damning New Yorker article

At MSNBC, Phil Griffin was worried, and with good reason. The average “Countdown” viewer is fifty-nine years old, and forty-five per cent of the viewers are women, presumably Democratic—a fair description of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp. Olbermann was offended by the suggestion. “I can’t do that!” he says, recalling that conversation. “Me doing a commentary against my own opinion is pandering. Black and white. And I’m not going to do it. Would I pull back a little bit, or think long and hard about whether or not I want to knowingly alienate part of the audience? Yeah. And I did. I mean, I held fire on Senator Clinton for quite a while after she began to really scare me, with some of these tactics.”

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

BTW, this is the same Phil Griffin who was quoted as saying:

. . . [A]lthough a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network’s overall coverage was fair.

“I get it, that in this 24-hour media world, you’ve got to be on your game and there’s very little room for mistakes,” Mr. Griffin said. “But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to use it for their advantage. They were trying to rally a certain demographic, and women were behind it.”

There appears to be a credibility problem for Phil Griffin on this issue. Obviously he DID think his network, or at the least, his biggest star, was biased and offensive towards Hillary Clinton. But he blissfully denied the obvious to the NYTimes. In any event, Tom Brokaw clearly was not comfortable with Olbermann's antics:

Toward the end of the primary season, with Montana and South Dakota going for Obama and Clinton, respectively, on June 3rd, Olbermann earned another on-air scolding from Brokaw after asserting that Clinton was “trying to shoehorn her way” into the coverage of the presumed nominees of the two parties. “I think that’s unfair, Keith,” Brokaw said. “When you look at the states that she won and the popular vote that she piled up, and the number of delegates that she has on her side, she’s got real bargaining power in all of this.

(Emphasis supplied.) In any event, apparently all is not well at MSNBC and there is real concern about what Olbermann has wrought:

But, just as Obama must work to win Clinton supporters for the fall campaign, Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true. But I do think they’re going to come back. There’s nowhere else to go.”

(Emphasis supplied.) I am now a full throated Obama supporter but I will never come back to MSNBC and Keith Olbermann as a reliable source of news. Olberman is a propagandist, as Somerby has pointed out, not a journalist. Chris Matthews is well, you know what he is. And those 2 bully their entire operation. It is a distasteful and unappealing network to me now. I won't be watching them.

Speaking for me only.

< Contrast | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I wonder if Olbermann will accuse (5.00 / 20) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    Griffin of crashing parties too?

    Seriously, what a disaster at that network. And they deserve every bit of audience loss they get.

    If Griffin is willing to say this in public:

    it was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he's funny and he's clever and he's witty, and he's all these great things,

    [. . .]

     And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go.

    Then you know there's a SERIOUS internal problem at that network. Someone's getting fired.

    I will never watch him again. (4.93 / 15) (#33)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    It looked to me as though he just decided to pander to Obama, dKos, etc.  Of course, I could be over-estimating his intelligence.  But the possibility that he is just another supid, sexist msm pundit is no comfort.

    I can't stand him anymore either.... (5.00 / 23) (#74)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:34 AM EST
    ....in fact it made it difficult for me to watch the poignant coverage of Tim Russert's passing when I even felt empathy for Andrea Mitchell, whom I also have no respect for as a journalist. But Olberman kept trying to ratchet Russert's death from a tragedy to those that knew and loved him into a national tragedy. He pounced on something that Barbara Walters said and kept baiting Russert's friends into making statements that conformed to his narrative, when they clearly just wanted to talk about what he meant to them. Olberman is a demagogue. I'm glad that his bosses are started to see that he poses a problem.

    As BTD says, Tweety is Tweety, but Olberman was actually someone I thought was reputable. It shakes my sense of complacency when I see the dark opportunistic side of people that I thought were the good guys.


    There was an article somewhere not (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    long ago talking about the animosity between the "moderators" at MSNBC. The rapid climb up the ranks of David Gregory to the competition between Olbermann and Matthews. They all felt threatened by the other. With Russert's bureau chief position now open, you can imagine the back biting that will be going on. Olbermann was grand standing his coverage as an interview, most likely.

    in my humble opinion none of those you (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    named shouldn't even dust the chair much less sit in it.

    Rec'd (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:46:46 PM EST
    despite mangled syntax.

    smile! nearly lost coffee on laptop! (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    i was laughing!

    i stopped watching Olbermann after (5.00 / 15) (#96)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:30:30 AM EST
    his reaction the the Rev Wright incident.  As you recall this was just shortly after his "special comments" on Clinton.  At the time Olbermann claimed he was doing the special comment because Clinton didn't immediately reject Ferraro, butonly her comments.  And, it took a couple of days for Ferraro to resign from her Clinton campaign post.

    Then came Rev Wright and Obama took even LONGER to repsond to it.  And Obama rejected the Wright comments, but not the man.  (sound familiar?)  And Obama didn't remove Wright from his campaign.  

    So, I waited to see what Olbermann's reaction would be since the circumstances were almost identical to the Ferraro incident.  So, what did Olbermann do?  He gave Obama a platform to discuss the situation in overly friendy terms.  Asked no hard hitting questions.  And, did no follow-up on any vague answers Obama gave.  And, in the end it took Obama LONGER to remove Wright from his campaign post that it took for Ferraro to leave the Clinton campaign.

    He let Obama get away with the statements saying he had NEVER heard these types of statements from Wright.  He just learned about them "recently" when it had actually been over a year. and on, and on..  He never actually pinned him down for any specific answers.

    I haven't watched him since.


    I wrote to Media Matters on that (5.00 / 11) (#107)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    gentle interview with Obama, and how the questions were designed to allow him to lie about the Rev and when he learned of the media storm. I had already written to MM on the ridiculous commentary against Hillary, but brought it up again to emphasize the bias on MSNBC. MM, the "watchdog" did nothing to address any of this. But, now they are all over anything unjust toward Clinton.

    MM is not a watchdog (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    It is an attack dog.

    If it ever claimed to be otherwise, it is lying.  BTW, I don't think "attack dog" is a bad thing.  Pointing out BS is important and useful, even if you only point out the BS that bothers you the most.


    He'll be sent to start a Che Revolucion in Bolivia (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM EST
    mark my words.  

    He's meglomaniacal loose cannon.


    Seriously... (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:37:55 AM EST
    the Olberman accolades (and Chuck Todd, to a lesser degree) got to be a bit much. I became uncomfortable watching. Decided hero- worship that KO seems to covet (Murrow, Russert, Obama and who knows who in the sports world where KO germinated). I bet he's got some real father figure issues.

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 7) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:19:30 PM EST
     bought right into the Obama campaign talking point that a candidate must have the MOST pledged delgates to get the noimnation.  Every time they talked about delegates they kept insisting that "she can't catch up in pledged delegates" as if it was the only measure super delegates were allowed to use.  I never once heard Todd use any disclaimer that a candidate doesn't HAVE TO win the most pledged delegates in order to get support from super delegates.

    I stopped watching KO about 2 1/2 (5.00 / 12) (#141)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    months ago because of the Hillary hate.  Prior to that I watched most of his show every night. But then the worm turned and it became ugly.  To my mind, he should be penalized...he isn't all that.
    But I forget, this is the era of being rewarded for bad behavior, starting from presidential nominee campaigns on down.

    In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny...KO is a marooooon.


    ko fell in love with his image. sorry to say (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    the image doesn't conform to the real person. it appears msnbc is aware of it. the question is do they have the necessary fortitude to do something about it.

    Like Many "Celebrities" (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    exposed to the spotlight for a lengthy time, Keith Olbermann has become a caricature of himself.

    He is a man of extremes.  That will ultimately be his downfall.


    Nowhere else to go, Phil? (5.00 / 37) (#2)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST
    I'm gone, Phil.  And I used to have on MSNBC all the time, never missed Countdown, even TIVO'd it if I had to be gone then.

    But I'm gone now and for good -- because, y'know what?  There are lots of other information sources out there that don't abuse me.  And y'know what else?  Clinton isn't the only one with bargaining power still.  I have bargaining power, too.

    Or as the inimitable Fanny Flagg wrote so well in Fried Green Tomatoes: I'm older, and I have insurance.  Byeeeee, Phil.



    p.s.  And if KO and Tweets and the boyz don't know who Towanda! is, that oughta tell you something right there, Phil.

    I love that movie (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    on so many levels! I may just have to shuffle through m CDs and play it again.



    I meant DVDs not CDs (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:40 AM EST
    Need more coffee.

    Uh-oh (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    I don't know who Towanda is.  What does that say about me?

    Guess I need to go rent myself Fried Green Tomatoes.


    I hope you do (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by suki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:50:25 AM EST
    You won't regret it!

    Oh please do (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    It's a wonderful movie, funny and poignant and filled with important lessons as well as great actresses. Two stories in one. Kathy Bates and Jessica Tandy are delicious. And the relationship between Idgie and Ruth is heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time. One of my favorites!

    yes you do! but i recommend it simply (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    because it is a lovely movie with dang good acting. the towanda part by the way is priceless.

    the book is great, too (none / 0) (#165)
    by lucy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    Rent the movie, it's great, but also read the book which is even better.  Like most books made into movies they had to leave stuff out.  

    Didn't watch the coverage there (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    of Tim Russert's death. It used to be my preferred channel to watch as well and so was KO. I guess eventually, your true colors blume.

    Yeah, KO, I'm older and I have (5.00 / 22) (#57)
    by litigatormom on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    more TVs and more spending power, and I'm not watching your advertisers anymore.  And I have two daughters who used to watch Countdown regularly and like me, are now on strike.

    So you can tell us we have nowhere else to go, just like Senator Obama now thinks we have nowhere else to go.  

    I have plenty of places to go.  But you've lost me permanently. If you preferred Obama to Clinton, that was your right. But you didn't have the right to talk about Clinton in the way you did, particularly not when you ignored so many questionable statements coming out of the Obama camp.

    Don't confuse maintaining your prejudices and biases with intellectual integerity, Keith. Your audience knows better.


    there's boycotts and boycotts (5.00 / 10) (#95)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:29:26 AM EST
    Even after the outrageous lies and smears kos himself and all the Oborg began at dailykos I still comment there and will diary(even more than when I thought we finally had a chance at a Dem in the WH), my eco diaries, because there is the chance to appeal to naked greed to reduce carbon levels, now there is no chance at legislative change.

    There is now a laughable lack of objective analysis at dailykos without the fine minds (like yours litigatormom!) of the wiser and more nitpicky media-critical Hillary supporting many who left. But it is still worth the effort of influencing the dregs. The alternative is climate armagedden.

    But the one way media is different. I do not support anyone who thinks it is acceptable to threaten physical violence against a female candidate who would not quit, any more than I would listen to someone threatening a black candidate who wouldn't quit with a noose!


    He's right in one respect, (5.00 / 8) (#98)
    by Iphie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    I don't watch network news now at all because I feel that I don't have a reliable, unbiased choice. CNN is out for the most part and I will not watch MSNBC again (if they sponsor a debate I'll watch that, but only that, no commentary before or after). The irony of course, is that MSNBC has turned into a parody of Fox with Olbermann playing a wordier, less entertaining O'Reilly.

    He's right, I don't have much of a choice, but I do have other options. On election night, I imagine I will have one tuner on PBS and the other on C-SPAN -- not nearly the same level of flash, but a whole lot more substance.


    Jumping the shark, landing in the tank for Obama (5.00 / 10) (#171)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    A lot of this seems to be greed over the arrival in force of the allegedly huge population drawn to Obama.

    Playing to these coveted Dumpling Dems that apparently Donna Brazile has assigned herself to shepherd towards partisan tasks has clearly inflated and emboldened the loudest Obama supporters to do anything they can to benefit personally. This holds for the blogs, party and media blitherati.

    All I see is suckers taken in by the kind of spray-painted fools' gold that con artists used to plant to sell a fake motherlode to greedy prospectors during various Gold Rushes.

    They're still panning for the real stuff and to keep themselves going they're down to burning furniture for firewood to sustain themselves until they hit the big score.

    They burned off their credibility and integrity, such as it was, and there's no going back when people's alternate options, and power, are improving.

    I get news on demand from a variety of sources that don't insult my intelligence or tax my credulity. I can satisfy my blog thirst any number of places. I don't have to support billion dollar food fights among corrupt politicians or endorse the corporations that suck the marrow from government and take food out my family's mouths.

    These creeps think they've cleverly positioned themselves to turn spigots and levers and I will do their bidding because there's no place for me to "go"?

    Heh, I'm the one who can turn THEM off and be gone, baby, gone. Their time is done, not mine. Eventually, they'll see they lost a good thing and I don't even have to tell them I'm not there. They'll know it.


    that is just fantastic! (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    You nailed it. And very nicely said.

    These TV so called journalists are bigots and shills for their special interest groups, friends, and their own corporation. Not that this is anything new, but it's been more obvious lately I think. A real eye opener. And indeed we all have many options.

    I admit I occasionally flip by them just like I occasionally flip by foxnews just to see what the bigots are up to lately. Usually more for the humor factor. I can stay long on either for fear of raising the BP too high. And there are lots of other outlets for information too.


    blitherati (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:32:27 PM EST
    is a most excellent word.

    i'd rather give up my televison (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    than ever watch countdown again, and i was a regular viewer before the hillary bashing.

    Utterly OT (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    Good to see you, Cream City.  Assume you are drying out there in Wisconsin.  Our section of the Mississippi crests today.

    Don't supposed Olbermann covered THAT story recently?


    Thanks BTD for connecting the dots (5.00 / 22) (#3)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:16:34 AM EST
    Who else would have mentioned the obvious contradiction between what Griffin said to the New Yorker and what he said to the NY Times? This is just another example of why I love this place.

    Indeed (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    What Contradiction? (none / 0) (#16)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    I don't see it and Armando doesn't explain it. Griffin saw a problem in the Atlantic article and sought to try to correct it. Same is true in his short quote in the NYT - he said mistakes had been mad and they were corrected. That seems to be consistent to me. What is the contradiction there?

    As for his comment about demographics and women - it is true - Clinton did try to rally women and was successful at it. Nothing wrong with that and Griffin didn't say anything was wrong with it.

    Much to do about nothing. There is not a contradiction, unless someone would like to explain what it is which so far no one has.


    This is the Talex I remember (5.00 / 17) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    In the NYTimes article, Griffin said:

    [A]lthough a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair.

    In the New Yorker article, it is reported:

    Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp. Olbermann was offended by the suggestion. "I can't do that!" he says, recalling that conversation.

    Griffin said there was biased coverage from Olbermann and he refused to correct it. Seems pretty clear to me.


    Well sorry (none / 0) (#59)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    in the NYT Griffin himself does not even mention Olbermann. He could be talking about any number of issues and people in his capacity of senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC.

    Secondly a portion of the article which you quote, and is key to the connection you are trying to make, is not even a direct quotation by Griffin, it is the reporters words and we all know that doesn't always hold up. And even the reporter does not mention Olbermann in that article quote. In fact Olbermann is not even mentioned in the article up to that point.

    Now if we were in court your connection of the two articles has all kinds of holes in it.

    It was not my intention to get into a spat. I was simply pointing out that trying to connect two 'different' articles that may be speaking about separate incidents in different time frames and one does not even mention Olbermann in the quotes being compared does not show any clear contradiction.

    At the end of the day what Griffin said is not really the rub. The rub is Olbermann himself and the fact that Griffin was doing his job and trying to keep from losing an audience is admirable. The fact that Olbermann refused to understand that is the real story here IMHO.


    I'm sorry? (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    You argue that the biggest personality at MSNBC who anchored its political coverage was not referenced?

    That is ridiculous.


    Where (none / 0) (#69)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:15:33 AM EST
    was Olbermann named in the NYT article up to the point of the quote? He wasn't. He name does not appear in that portion of the article up to that point nor does Griffin mention his name. Read it and see.

    That's all I have to say on my comments. The facts speak for themselves is all I am saying.


    You miss my point (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:21:38 AM EST
    When discussing MSNBC this NECESSARILY encompassess its biggest personality and the anchor of its political news coverage,

    Not NECESSARILY (none / 0) (#99)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST

    Again, in Griffin's capacity, where he is in charge of not only MANY on-air personalities along with producers, writers, directors - who can all have a role in what is said on air...

    The mistakes that Griffin references in the actual quote of his words can extend to any of the broadcast team.

    Had Griffin actually mentioned Olbermann in his quote then there would be no 'interpretation' of what Griffin meant here.



    Have you ever heard the phrase (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    "Dancing on the head of a pin?"

    Cute (none / 0) (#116)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:45:11 AM EST
    Now can you show me where Griffin named Olbermann in his quote?


    Case closed.


    The case is not closed (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:10:02 PM EST
    Your argument is flawed.  Griffin named no one.

    The NYT contacted Griffin because the network, not just one individual, had been noted to have a problem with sexist coverage:

    MSNBC, a particular target of criticism

    The network, including Matthews, Shuster and Olbermann, has been criticized for sexist coverage.

    Which is (none / 0) (#155)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    exactly the point I was making. thank you.

    You enjoy seeing your case crushed? Odd. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by rilkefan on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    You think that he wasn't referencing (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    a disciplinary problem and ratings dip with Olberman?

    fershur. lol.


    LOL 2U2 (none / 0) (#77)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    Your injecting something that wasn't said in the quote. He could have been talking about Tweety or any number of other on air personalities that do reporting or commentary. The fact is that he didn't name Olbermann. What is it that you don't get about that?

    is this a court? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    Olberman is a huge problem.  Editors and producers are obsessed by ratings.

    I know that much about TV people.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#124)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:52:35 AM EST
    Olberman is a huge problem.

    And if you read one of my other posts you will see that I said that is the story - not Griffin.


    Gosh I hate to help BTD (5.00 / 9) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:18:09 AM EST
    but when you have to use "may be" in an argument you have just lost.

    MSNBC is dying and everyone but Mathews and KO knows it.


    No I didn't lose (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:20:47 AM EST
    I said 'may be' because in the article it isn't clear who or what he was talking about because he didn't name Olbermann & Olbermann was not even mentioned in the article up to that point. Was he?

    You lost (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST
    You just don't know it.

    Oh! (1.00 / 0) (#102)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    Because you said so.

    Want to know why I didn't lose? I'll tell you.




    Here in the Pac NW (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:35:04 AM EST
    MSNBC was dropped from the standard cable package early in the year. It would cost more to get it and just a couple of other ho-hum channels that they dropped. I was put out when that happened, but it would cost, oh, twelve bucks a month more to get the next upgrade.

    There are much better things I could do with that money, y'know? And the fact is and always has been, MSNBC has the smallest share of the cable news market. May they wither and die if they don't completely reinvent themselves for the better.


    Where? (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    I'm in the Pac NW and have the cheapest cable package available. MSNBC is included. I'd be happy if it wasn't, though.

    Portland/Willamette Valley (none / 0) (#146)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    Sorry, didn't mean to missspeak for the Big Time City North...I was up there and thought they didn't have it either, in my cheap motel...

    :) Thanks (none / 0) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    I would have considered moving if the area where MSNBC is not part of the package had it still been within a certain mileage distance from my children and grandchild.

    I like Portland. Is there still a rivalry between these two cities?


    The contradiction is that (5.00 / 17) (#27)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    Griffin minimized the mistakes and said they were quickly corrected in the NY Times. But to the New Yorker he talks about asking Olbermann to back off because he wa bashing Hillary too much and Olbermann refused. How is that correcting the mistakes? It isn't. Its a contradiction. And his description of Olbermann as comparable to an abusive boyfriend does not support the idea that the problems were inconsequential. Another contradiction.

    As recovering attorney (none / 0) (#63)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    I read it much differently as I explain in my response to Armando.

    Heck even as a casual reader I read it much differently. I think you are trying to inject what you want to read into this when in fact it is not that easy to compare two different articles in two different publications by two different authors when it is not clear that they are talking about the 'exact' same incidents and time frames.


    Spoken like (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    a true attorney.

    We, the jury, however, operate on the principle of reasonable doubt.  There's no reasonable doubt.


    I read your response (5.00 / 7) (#125)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair.

    Griffen here is talking about MSNBC coverage overall. He is not discussing a particular incident or time frame, except to excuse any mistakes as minor and quickly corrected. If he is discussing the network overall, he must by all reason be including the coverage by Keith Olbermann on Countdown, one of MSNBC's banner programs. He doesn't need to name each program individually because he's collectively given them a clean bill of health and a "fair" rating.

     I think your  legal recovery has hit a set back if you are arguing that Griffin did not mean to include Countdown in his blanket defense of MSNBC coverage.  All the incidents and time frames mentioned in the New Yorker, in which Griffin admits to a major problem with KO's program which KO refused to correct, are of a part and parcel of MSNBC's primary coverage, which Griffin disingenuously categorized as fair and non-sexist to the NY Times reporter.

    But I can see from your argument back and forth that you are more interested in arguing the point rather than understanding our point of view. (Hint: if you want to be a successfully recovered attorney you need to grapple with this tendency.) That said, I will leave the argument at "We agree to disagree."



    Speaking for me too on this one (5.00 / 18) (#4)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    I'm not going back to the bullies.  Griffin got the analogy right.  Matthews and Olbermann are sometimes entertaining and smart, and I may even agree with them more often than not. But they are bullies nonetheless and the only way to take away their power is to leave them.

    I forgot to add that he is wrong (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    When he said we have no place else to go.

    He's never heard of TalkLeft!  I can get just and much insight in the commentary here as I ever got from Chris Matthews.  The evening time I used to spend watching Hardball and Countdown, I now spend on-line, mostly here.


    Better than Hardball (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    And the only spittle is my own! (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    i started calling that program (none / 0) (#108)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    SpitBall a long time ago.  Hell, my mother is 76 and even she could see and comment on the drewl every day

    oops (none / 0) (#109)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:40:36 AM EST
    drool, never really had to try to spell that word before.  LOL  REally how often does it come up?

    Every day here (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by suki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    at my house, unfortunately. My youngest dog is a big time drooler.

    LOL, we are the political commentary... (5.00 / 19) (#79)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:19:54 AM EST
    ...we have been waiting for.

    HA! (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    (That's my best Matthews impression).

    Olbermann may be (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by talex on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    sometimes entertaining, but smart?

    How smart is it to knowingly alienate and chase away half your audience? He is no smarter that Kos or Josh Marshall who when it come to audience retention have showed no smarts at all.

    Also Olbermann like most of the Obama supporters refused to recognized Obama's dirty tactics and his hypocrisy on many issues. It's like they all have Mama's 'Not my Johnny' syndrome. When you allow your brain to freeze up like a protective mother instead of looking at realities all your reason, sensibility, and credibility go out the window.


    that was one of the biggest mistakes (5.00 / 11) (#118)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    of the media.

    It was their attitude that Clinton, no matter what she said (or Bill or anyone associated with the campaign), it MUST have always had an evil coded meaning behind it.  And, it wasn't that there MIGHT be a coded meaning, it was that there in FACT WAS ALWAYS a coded meaning.

    But, with Obama, he was considered new and fresh and there was NO WAY there could ever be a coded meaning in his words.  And, if it came from a supporter or even a memeber of the campaign, it didn't count unless it came directly out of the mouth of Obama.

    MSNBC came out and said this of Clinton many times.  And usually stated that anything a supporter had said had been directed by Clinton with her full knowledge and approval.


    i would assume that ko is planning (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    on all those "new democrats" to be his audience. good luck with that!

    Olbermann is deluded. (5.00 / 8) (#178)
    by jackyt on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    He seems to truly believe he is the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow.

    KO doesn't get that Murrow was a REAL journalist, not a purveyor of opinion, (baked, half-baked, raw vitriol, or otherwise). Murrow was a master expositor whose commentaries were based on very solid fact, not amorphous "ooh, she's so-o-o-o-o-h scary" boogy(wo)man rants.

    That KO has been able to appoint himself the "keeper of the flame of truth" while being as much of a demagogue as Joe McCarthy ever was is the REAL travesty.

    Fraud, thy name is Keith Olbermann!


    I've been done for 2 months (5.00 / 21) (#5)
    by Dave B on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    My mental health is much better now that my TV NEVER tunes in to MSNBC.  Griffin sounds like all those other Democratic hacks saying that Hillary supporters are full of crap when they claim that the will either stay home for vote for McCain.  "They have nowhere else to go..."

    Reminds me off all the Obama supporters at MyDD and Kos.  I don't know how many times I've been told not to let the door hit me in the ass on the way out.  Guess it doesn't bother them that they are telling a guy that first started knocking doors for Democrats in 1968 with my dad when I was 8 years old.  Talk about pompous.

    4 Democratic girls at dinner last night (5.00 / 19) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    So I ask, 'well, what are you going to do about the election'? Two say, they are skipping voting for President and just voting down the ticket. Whew, at least. There were no stay at homes but 4 not voting President.

    No one there likes the way Hillary was treated by the media, the DNC and Obama campaign and feel the only way to voice that displeasure where it is really felt and shows is at the voting booth.

    The general feeling was that neither one of the two contenders will be able to solve our current problems and change anything for years to come. Thus, having a vote proof Democratic Congress and Senate will have to control what is happening and they have better do a better job than the last 2 years. We all gave up MSNBC and I am the only one on-line blogging.

    Griffin describes it right on the nose. Keith ended up being that jerk. I was so disappointed in him and MSNBC. The funny thing is that I loved Keith and was so so about Hillary. Now, I love Hillary and can't waste my time on Keith. I hope Griffin understands that it is not just Keith, although he was #1, his entire crew, including Abrams and Mathews, allowed sexism to flourish within the MSNBC structure.


    Similar anecdotes here (5.00 / 12) (#140)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    Was just talking to a colleague Friday, who I hadn't seen in a while due to vacations.   She came into my office and we chatted, and she announced over the course of the conversation that she was never going to watch MSNBC again, and that for the first time in her life she was going to skip voting for president.  White, professional woman in her 50's.  Committed Democrat her whole life.  Oh and she doesn't do blogs.

    Friday, I also got an e-mail from a friend, Asian, professional woman in her 30's, responding to an article I'd forwarded her that mentioned the KO/Couric dust-up.  She responded that she didn't want to chat about the article because she wasn't ready to re-engage in politics yet.  She wasn't even sure if she could bring herself to vote in November.  She'd have to wait and see.  She did add a P.S., however, that she hates KO and thinks he should put himself in the worst person in the world hall of fame.  By the way, this woman's political views are distinctly to the left of mine.

    Something is happening here folks.  We'll see what it all comes to in November.  But something is definitely happening.


    All those little data points (5.00 / 9) (#168)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:36:27 PM EST
    will be put together to make a picture.

    I think the Suffragettes would understand.  They fought to give all women the right to vote.  They fought to give us real power in our government and our lives.  

    In school, all I remember of women getting the right to vote is a date.  It wasn't until I was an adult that I found out that women fought year after year, for decades to get that far.  It was no gift, given freely by those in power the instant women asked for it.

    My vote is no gift.  It must be fought for and won.  Those who do not think it is worth while to fight for my vote will not get it.  Too bad Obama didn't propose a women's outreach as he did for religious interests.  There are two things that tell how much a politician values a constituency - time and money.  Right now, it seems that Obama has quite a few priorities ahead of Women and Clinton Supporters.


    Yes, same here. (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    I was out to breakfast with a friend this morning. She loves Olbermann but hasn't been  a regular viewer over the last few months due to her job. When  I brought up comments made by Keith - his flat-out BS regarding Hillary's RFK comments, etc. - she was just flattened and saddened.

    I urged her to look everything we discussed up for herself and not to take my word for it. Can't wait to talk to her about it further after reading this thread this morning. i do think it is safe to say, however, that when the dust clears, KO has ko'd another viewer.


    Had dinner with four friends (5.00 / 8) (#209)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:48:20 PM EST
    all women.  Three of us over 55.  Lifelong dems.  One hispanic, on African American, and me(Italian American).  The fourth, a young Navajo woman, is in Obama's camp but not a diehard.  We three older women are all angry, all frustrated, and all stunned at the patronizing attitude of the (younger) men in the party.  None of us will ever tune in to MSNBC again unless there is substantial change.  All three of us tremendously disappointed with Rachel Maddow. While we will still probably vote Obama, none of us will work to get him  elected.  And two of us were pretty consistent workers for the party.  

    Last night I had dinner with my gay cousin and her partner.  They are so ANGRY.  Both are reregistering as Independents.  Angry as h*ll at the dems and angrier still at the media.

    Like so many here I once counted myself a Countdown viewer/supporter. KO's hate driven, ego driven nastiness was a HUGE turnoff.  Now I see him as a jock jerk.  That's all.

    The fact is that the democratic party has betrayed women badly.  Dean's "there was sexism" is too little too late.  Donna Brazille was race baiting and I resent it.  Hillary has never been a racist and for any of them to imply differently has angered me.  
    Women have been betrayed. (Some) Young women may not get it yet.  But it is true.  

    Color me angry.


    Fareed Zakaria (CNN) suggested that (none / 0) (#159)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:27:47 PM EST
    there is not much difference between the McCain and Obama positions on Iraq.   That they are now coming close together and would not take much to have bipartisan approach.  (Brookings Institute guests were discussing positions.)

    Zakaria questioned how this would impact political decisions in November.


    IMO Obama Will Not End The Occupation (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    of Iraq. Due to military and political necessities, both Obama and McCain may reduce the number of troops there without actually ending the occupation.

    The only hope of ending the occupation is that the Iraqis refuse to sanction our presence there.

    WARE: What we're also hearing from the Iraqi government is they may go it alone, using a hangover snippet of law left over from the original American occupation authority of Paul Bremer.

    They could create their own legislation in their own Congress or Parliament, and thereby dictate to America what U.S. troops can and cannot do in this country, where they can go, where they must stay, and how many you're allowed to have. So you may see the Iraqis taking over this war, and you may see a lot of U.S. gains being drawn back.

    i highly recommend that (none / 0) (#167)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    msnbc and the obama campaign not discount this anger and these viewers/voters. obama needs to get away from his advisors and do some serious meditating. he could still bring a number back but personally i think it not in him to do that. soon it will if not already too late with these voters. as for ko, it has been too late for a long time not that he cares.

    Whoa. (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by pie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    Another one bites the dust.

    These people have no credibility.

    Personally, (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:23:42 AM EST
    I never found him clever or witty.
    I thought he was a blustering, sort of buffoonish, cartoon character.
    Some of the stuff he railed against, which I welcomed in its intent, would have been much better served by someone less....Olbermannish.

    I don't get MSNBC anyway, I saw his stuff on Youtube, maybe twice. So they never had me to lose.

    But they would have lost me!!

    I never quite under stood (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:08:45 AM EST
    the way he used Neville Chamberlain in such an ideosyncratic way.

    Chamberlain's legacy is kinda complex historically but appeasement is over used didactically to point out to polls not to lose their nerve.  OTOH Olberman came up with a theory that defies commonsense.


    BTW, (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by pie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience...

    That core, which includes men, has also been a good portion of the democratic base.

    Keith, you repeated the lies and smears with glee.  See ya around.

    What A Idiot (5.00 / 10) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    Usually you would see this sort of arrogance and gross overestimation of ones self worth from a young person who has just had his or her first bit of success. He probably thinks that he is the next coming of Russert.... gag. I am glad that I do not have a teevee.

    The guy is clearly delusional. I thought he was just an entertainer playing to his audience, that he takes himself seriously as a top journalist or critical thinker is laughably pathetic.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by suki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    could this explain someone going to web sites to announce their 'special comments' in advance?
    Perhaps someone is worried about ratings?
    As for nowhere else to go... woo boy, denial isn't pretty, is it?
    And I have an idea of where else Olbermann and Co. can go, but I'll refrain from saying it here.

    Score one for Phil Griffin. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by clio on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    I used to be one of Countdown's "average" viewers.
    Made an effort to watch the show every night-and it was not at a convenient time for me.  But I stopped sometime in March, having turned off Chrissy-baby months before that.

    I won't be back:  I blocked MSNBC and NBC from my preferred channels lineup (as I did FOX years ago)  and no one in our household ever looks at them now, even accidentally.

    Since I don't have cable or satellite, (5.00 / 17) (#19)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    I never "had" the MSNBC Boyz to begin with, but Griffin assumes that those who do have to "go" someplace - that "nowhere" is simply not an option - and in that he is wrong: no one has to go anywhere, but they may choose to go into the next room to pick up a book to read, or outside to look at the stars, or to the fridge to grab a glass of wine and sit down and have real conversation with the spouse.  How novel - a world without TV...

    It's amazing how peaceful it is when the TV is silenced, and no one is yammering his or her self-important opinions at us.

    I just keep thinking about that line in the recent Jack Nicholson/Morgan Freeman movie - The Bucket List (which I didn't see, but caught this in the promos): "No one cares what you think."

    I picture thousands of post cards to MSNBC and Olbermann with just that sentiment.

    Seriously (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    It isn't like cable/network news is a necessity of life.  There's plenty else to do that doesn't involve listening to some idiot shriek at me.

    I like the postcard idea a lot.  Maybe we should pick ones with pictures of BBQ grills or knitting needles or roses or footballs - whatever else we're spending our time on rather than listening to their "indispensable" "news" programs.


    Olbermann flamed out (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    in every job he has ever had in television.

    What MSNBC has is a psychosomatic, baby who loves doing his temper tantrums in front of millions.

    That pathos is in MSNBC's corporate, where they sit and take it. Don't they know they are the joke as much as Olbermann.

    The New Yorker piece is damning to television news. Validates the silliness of the new 'journalism'.

    4th of July is coming up. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    Didja ever notice the big shows buy new fireworks every year, instead of relighting the ones they lit up and blew off the year before?

    What's up with that, anyway?


    Does Griffin really think people won't pick (5.00 / 16) (#21)
    by pluege on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    "nowhere" over sickening egotistical jingoism, narcissist self-aggrandizement, and immature bullying hatred? Is he nuts? Griffin apparently suffers from more of the egomania infesting NBC.

    O'Reilly announced (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    His viewership out-numbered KO's last week by 500,000. I think people have found a place to go.

    Shoot, I've been watching cable on demand... (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    ...when I feel the need to have my TV on. So little of TV news is actually informative, and if they are vying for a share of entertainment viewing they've got a long way to go. For that there are plenty of other options.

    i have silence of the lambs on right now. (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    tv movies and some others such as burn notice will get my time this summer.

    I totally don't get his idea (5.00 / 13) (#138)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    that there's nowhere to go.  There has never before, in the history of humankind, been as many other places to go.

    He's not the only newspaper in a one-newspaper town circa 1920.


    Sceaming at the TV (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    was detrimental to my health..... I quit watching MSNBC.

    There would have to be major restructuring for me to ever watch the channel... can't call it a news channel.

    I will be even more bitter towards the channel should the Dems fail to capture the WH!

    I Just Love The Theme (5.00 / 19) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:42:02 AM EST
    But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

    MSNBC and the NEW Democratic Party should collaborate and write a song for this meme.

    Life is full of options and not turning on my TV is one of them. Not voting for Obama is another. Don't have to go anywhere to refuse to participate in supporting things that do reflect my interests or my values.

    It's very Noel Coward. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:15:47 AM EST
    Don't let's be beastly to Obama...

    Don't understand your comment (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Don't see how my comment could be defined as beastly to anyone by any definition of the world. Lack of agreement or support in my world does not equate to

    1 politics is a beastly profession awful, horrible, rotten, nasty, foul, objectionable, unpleasant, disagreeable, offensive, vile, abominable, hateful, detestable, terrible, godawful. antonym pleasant.
    2 he was beastly to her unkind, malicious, mean, nasty, unpleasant, unfriendly, spiteful, cruel, vicious, base, foul, malevolent, despicable, contemptible, horrible, horrid, rotten. antonym kind.


    New definitions of words to go along with a new brand of politics?    

    The Lyrical quality of the (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    quote you made sounded like something Noel Coward might have written.

    Don't let's be beastly to the Germans...



    Duh - I get it now (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:16:35 PM EST
    I initially had the same problem as the BBC radio audience had to the song.

    the humour did not translate well over the wireless and caused some fuss

    Reminds Me Of The Movie Line (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Blue Jean on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    where one of the administrators tells the principal that the students are rioting, and he has to calm them down.  The principal says "I don't have to do anything except die."

    New Yorker article... (5.00 / 25) (#25)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM EST
    ....during MSNBC's coverage of the New Hampshire primary. The entire MSNBC team, transported by Obama's victory in Iowa a week earlier, plainly anticipated an Obama win (as did much of the rest of the press), a view that was only scarcely contained on the air, while the polls were still open. Clinton, of course, won New Hampshire, which prompted a gentle on-air warning from Tom Brokaw to his colleagues to stay out of "the business of making judgments before the polls have closed and trying to stampede, in effect, the process." He added, "I think that the people out there are going to begin to make some judgments about us, if they haven't already, if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding."

    Brokaw is one of the few (5.00 / 17) (#36)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:48:51 AM EST
    that I have more respect for, instead of less, after the dreadful primary coverage.

    and even he's a blowhard. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST
    I might take a second look at his Greatest Generation book though.  He might have a few insights.

    i look for him to permanently take (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    the spot that russert's untimely passing created.

    Brokaw is watching a brand he helped build up be (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    torn down by the MessNBC Boyz. Must be a sad time for him. And now Russert is dead. While I had problems with how Russert questioned Dems, especially, he was better than Tweets and KO. Very sad time for Brokaw.

    Keith Olbermann, (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM EST

    KO and Tweety made FOX acceptable again (5.00 / 11) (#39)
    by Sunshine on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM EST
    I thought I was through with FOX for life but after the most bias news I ever saw was MSNBC's coverage of the primary, I ran to FOX and decided they were "fair and balanced" or the nearest thing we had to it...
    I could not feel comfortable supporting either
    McCain or Obama, IMO, both feel supperior to women and think women's place is ironing the shirts or making the cookies....
    Some men just take it for granite that men are supperior and cannot understand why it is even questioned....  Women in media have worked long and hard to become one of the guy's and they are not going to throw it away by defending another woman.... I have new admiration for Katy Couric, she stands alone...
    I'm looking into writing in Hillary...

    amazing but true (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    FOX was more fair and balanced during the primary, and their coverage of the GE hasn't been that awful.

    It also isn't "cover to cover" (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:16:13 AM EST
    FOX realizes there are other things to talk about.

    Equallly Unfair and Unbalanced (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    lol. They were not fair.

    Sure they were at times (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    O'Reilly was very complimentary of Hillary for a day or two after the interview.

    They have Geraldine Ferraro as a regular guest commenter. She's been very articulate in sharing the viewpoint of many Clinton supporters.


    FOX (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03:26 PM EST
    was the only network I saw that didn't twist the "FairyTale" comment out of context.  They actually played the full video and proved Clinton was talking ONLY about Obama's anti-war poistion.

    FOX served a useful purpose during the primary (5.00 / 8) (#162)
    by davnee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    Since they just hate Dems period, they were at liberty to be more evenhanded in their coverage.  They weren't in the tank for anyone.  And with the rest of the msm going off the rails, FOX got to look good just by playing it relatively straight.  And then FOX got a bonus out of it, because just playing it straight for Clinton gave them a good opportunity to start softening BO for the GE under the radar, and to score an unexpected audience of disaffected Clinton voters.

    Now that the primary is over, FOX will be hopping back in the tank for Republicans, but it will be hard to ever criticize them too harshly for it having seen the awful lows their allegedly high-minded brethren were capable of.


    State Requirements (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    Check out your state.  In some states, if you write in a Dem and that Dem has not done the paperwork to be a write-in, the votes may be given to the Dem nominee.... so if you write in Clinton when she is not a write-in candidate (she will never apply) then that vote will go to Obama.  Others have written it is probable best to leave it blank or if you live in a solidly red or blue state, you can make a statement by voting for McCain.

    what about leaving it blank? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by ccpup on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST
    I live in NYC and -- if I'm in the States in November -- plan on leaving the Top of the Ticket blank.   That'll just count as a No Vote, correct?

    I know it seems like a silly question.  But I've never done anything like this before.  I've ALWAYS voted for President, but I don't want any chance of Obama getting my vote this year.


    Don't count on FOX to continue to be fair to any D (none / 0) (#199)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    now that the general election is commenced.

    They could afford to show some balance during the extended primary--now, it's for real. And the channel was designed to support R's.


    MSNBC Bigotry (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Lacy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:52:43 AM EST
    I turned on MSBC last Tuesday at 2:45 PM and the woman host had an Obama acolite and a guy from Townhall.com on. They whooped it up and derided a report the Clintons had said MSNBC was biased against the Clintons.

    The host then read a smear from Powerline about the Clintons, and they whooped it up all the more, mocking the Clintons. They literally proved the Clintons correct right before your eyes, in a revolting charade of denial.

    So there are more weasels at MSNBC than just Matthews and Olbermann.

    Please note (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM EST
    That Obama supporters who do not want to discuss the Media's horrific performance ion this campaign do NOT have to post comments, much less read, these posts.

    Indeed, if the sum of their contribution is" the primary is over" I suggest they not post in my threads at all and if they do post such comments, they will be permanently suspended from commenting in my posts.

    surveying various blogs (5.00 / 12) (#64)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:12:31 AM EST
    and what not, I think the Democratic Party needs to have some sort of comprehensive debriefing conference.

    Even if Obama's only lost 4% of Clinton voters (concentrated in swing states) it's a monumental disaster.


    everyone is saying now not to attack (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST
    michelle obama. ok, fine! why weren't they advocating that for hillary?

    KO, man of principle (5.00 / 16) (#51)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:21 AM EST
    He "held fire" on Sen. Clinton when he interviewed her, and as soon as the interview was over, he went back to ranting behind her back.  He's a coward and a blowhard who just wants to keep running his mouth.

    You're right! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    I forgot about that.  Just one more nail in his coffin...

    Also, I was under the impression Countdown's audience tended to be younger men, but I guess I was wrong.


    I was surprised by that as well (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    He has plenty of young fans on Live Journal - at least they seem young.  They tend to also be fans of TDS and TCR.  

    LOL - KO Sticks by his 'standards' (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    On dialing back his rampant Clinton Derangement Syndrome:

    Olbermann was offended by the suggestion. "I can't do that!" he says, recalling that conversation. "Me doing a commentary against my own opinion is pandering. Black and white. And I'm not going to do it

    Leaving aside the hilarity of the rank coward failing to step to her honestly when facing her directly what freaking standards is Keith Obamann upholding?

    The journalistic standard of laugh-inhaling his own drool when discussing Britney Spears "fatness" or monitoring Lindsay Lohan's drinking?

    Yes, that would indeed constitute bearing aloft the journalistic torch of Edward R. Murrow and never -- never, I tells ya! -- backing down in the face of doubters saying, "Keith, honestly, you're embarrassing the craft of reporting and considered analysis, you're shaming the network and a feckin' eedjit for the ages."


    I'd like to see (5.00 / 7) (#139)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:08:33 PM EST
    the ghost of Edward R. Murrow come back to haunt KO as the Voice of Journalism Past.  

    I'd also like to see a TCR-style parody news show mocking Countdown.  Unfortunately, Republicans don't usually have much of a sense of humor, so I guess that's a no-go.


    He'd blow a lung full of smoke in Olb's face (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:20:04 PM EST
    and then say "consider yourself lucky."

    LOL (5.00 / 16) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:00:34 AM EST
    "People have nowhere else to go?"

    LOL!  I wish we could model what Olbermann's ratings would have been if he'd been at least somewhat even-handed in coverage, so that Olbermann himself could see how self-destructive he is.  Is that ego a mask for self-hatred?

    Of course, it's not just Keith.  MSNBC has become generally symbolic of Hillary hate.

    Mr. Griffin:  I'd rather sit handcuffed to a chair watching Barney reruns than spend a second of my precious life watching anything produced by MSNBC.

    These people live in fantasy-land.  

    Jeralyn, I think it was, put up a video, (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by jpete on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    or a link to a blog with it, that put together some of what was said about Hillary.  I couldn't watch it all because it is so ugly:


    If you can make it through the first half (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    or so, the rest is not only bearable but inspiring.  And I do not use that word lightly, not this campaign season.

    What responsibility, if any, rests (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM EST
    on Chuck Todd?

    and David Shuster (5.00 / 9) (#66)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:13:06 AM EST
    Could he have used the word "pimping" to describe any other candidate and kept his job at MSNBC?

    i have lost all faith in schuster. (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    the honchos as msbnc are smart enough to know this campaign will be over soon enough and where will their viwers come from? many if not most will not return. the young obama supporters will not stay in mass. they are young and will pursue other interests. so they will consider all this in selecting a replacement for their recent loss. i say abrams or brokaw. abrams wasn't as striking or as much in the tank as the others and bless his heart brokaw tried to warn the others.

    None, I think (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    His title is "Political Director," but as far as I can tell, he directs nothing.  It just means he's their chief polling analyst.  He's not always right by any means, but he generally at least tries to be fair.  But he's much too young and too junior at NBC to have any clout over the way they do political coverage, never mind over somebody like Olbermann or Tweety personally.

    Sorry to say, the guy who actually was in charge of political coverage is the late Tim Russert.  If there's anybody to blame for not getting this garbage under control, I think it pretty much has to be him.


    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    I saw some of those on C&L. I agree that there were some good ones for sure. But now he has clearly lost his way.

    I wouldn't go there now (5.00 / 12) (#91)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    ... even if there was nowhere else to go.

    holy ego, batman! (5.00 / 10) (#100)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

    does this guy exist in a vacuum? some alternate universe perhaps? maybe he's mentally stuck in the early 60's, when there were 3 networks and 3 news programs?

    i don't watch msnbc, at all, and somehow manage to stay reasonably well informed (ok, i was a little late on that appomattox thing), between print, net and tv media.

    there's your sign!

    The media is in as much of a bubble as (5.00 / 7) (#115)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    the politicians are, and totally incapable of self-critique.

    I caught part of a National Journal program on POTUS 08 yesterday while out getting ready for the Father's Day gathering at my house, and one person says "Oh, you're not going to go after Chris Matthews again, are you?  That's just not right."  She then proceeded to explain to the listeners and the person she was having this argument with, that, golly - the viewing audience complains when people like Matthews don't bring anything "real" to their coverage, and then complain when they offer real opinions - I mean, gosh - that's just not fair.

    I do not know who the other people were in the discussion, but one of them said (paraphrasing), "Look, I watch to be informed.  When the people who are supposed to be informing me offer nothing that is any different from conversations I have with my husband or my dog, and these guys like Matthers are being paid millions of dollars a year for what amounts to casual conversation that has no basis in reality, I think they have failed."

    I had to change the station and go back to music, because whoever that was who was hosting the show was just a complete and utter twit.

    Asking the media to grade themselves on their coverage is a waste of time.


    The last straw: (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by snstara on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    KO's cheap sellout of the "Special Comment."  

    I will never forget or forgive his foaming-at-the-mouth, Howard Beale-esque performance over Hillary's reference to Robert Kennedy's assassination and the CA June primary.  I actually had a fight with my mother, who unfortunately buys into this ratings-driven idiocy, over whether or not we ought to be able to say the "a" word.  Funny, we never had a problem with that 'a' word before KO and his MSNBCretins got ahold of it.  Guess I missed it on Carlin's list.

    I will never cast a vote for Barack Obama because I refuse to be goaded into voting for the media's candidate. If KO wants to talk about Orwell, perhaps he ought to examine his own role in the perpetuation of propaganda.

    Countdown with Keith Olbermann (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by rosadee41 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:43:25 AM EST
    I used to be a faithful viewer of Countdown every evening until a few months ago. I found KO's constant rants against Hillary Clinton totally distasteful. I will never watch MSNBC (especially Olbermann and Matthews) again.

    18,000,000 (5.00 / 11) (#119)
    by nellre on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    Seems like we should be able to make our voices heard, even if our vote was ignored.
    I want Kos, Huff, MSNBC and all those who participated in this tragedy to notice we're not there.

    We need our Fourth Estate back. It's a key component in our form of government... and we've lost it.

    18,000,000 is the number we know about (5.00 / 8) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:45:16 PM EST
    from their votes. Millions more will vote in the GE who didn't go to the polls for the primary and certainly those who didn't show up at the caucuses.

    I'm surprised that Olbermann did not make (5.00 / 12) (#120)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    Phil Griffin his Worst Person in the World, for daring to try to muzzle this sainted watchdog...

    Can't you just hear the Special Comment?  "You, sir, are nothing more than a corporate hack, oblivious to the guarantees of the First Amendment and more concerned with the almighty dollar than the principles I put myself on the line for every night.  How dare you speak of my calling in life in such condescending tones.  Muzzle me and you, sir, have just muzzled millions of concerned Americans fearful of the evil of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton cabal."


    Me neither. (5.00 / 10) (#122)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM EST
    MSNBC lost me long ago.
    They could not stand up to Bush. In fact, they became cheerleaders for him.
    Then when Bush started to slip, Olbermann gained popularity by beginning to criticize him and his policies. He gained ratings. He gained on his obsession, Bill O'Reilly. It went to his head. Now he thinks he is a leader of men.

    These guys, sooner or later, lose sight of their function.
    In Olbermann's case, his function was and is ill-defined.

    But - Griffin's statement is shocking to me. You quote him as saying "And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It's true. But I do think they're going to come back. There's nowhere else to go."

    This is classically sexist, in my opinion.
    It portrays the woman who has been brutalized (his description) as having no alternative but to come back to the man who brutalized her. This is textbook sexism.

    Doesn't it occur to this idiot that women, like men, would rather be alone that choose an environment in which they are degraded and brutalized?

    Even his suggestion to Olbermann to tone down his attacks on Clinton were based on a fear of ratings diminishing, not on a sense of principle, civility or justice.

    These are the people who control the media these days, and it ain't pretty.

    When I read the part of his quote, ""It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he's funny and he's clever and he's witty, and he's all these great things," he, Griffin is talking about himself and his crush on Keith.

    Maybe there are some women who had crushes on Olbermann, but I find that more often it is men who talk about "falling in love" with McCain or OIbermann or Obama.

    also men (5.00 / 7) (#175)
    by lucy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    This is true, his statement is classic sexism and insulting to woman.  It is also sexist to assume that only women were insulted by MSNBC's treatment of Hillary Clinton.  My husband was as offended as I was.  To assume that only women will stop watching because only women care about sexism is just plain wrong.  

    We used to watch KO every night during dinner but stopped during the primary and will never watch again.  

    We have premium cable and there are many other TV choices out there and plenty of political coverage on the internet.  


    Thanks to KO and Matthews... (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    ... when I fairly recently (April) switched to a cable provider (Verizon Fios) that doesn't carry MSNBC, I didn't notice for weeks. And I used to watch it almost nightly.  You would think Olbermann, who does generally strike me as a bright guy, would realize the danger of shifting from appealing to half of the electorate to appealling to half of a half.

    I was your average (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by Lahdee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    "Countdown" viewer who made it a habit, including daily recording in case I wasn't available at 8PM. I was impressed.

    When the vitriol season opened this year and Olbermann headed up the effort my viewing habits changed.

    I will not be returning to the fold.

    I never watched (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    Countdown regularly.  I tried, I really did, beginning back in 2004 when he was one of the few voices (or maybe the only one) on TV talking about election fraud.  But there was just something about his style that didn't sit right with me. I like to hear different POV's, and I never got that on Keith's show.  I wouldn't watch his show now if you paid me.  He's become a caricature of what he loathes and despises in right-wing journalism.

    You are absolutely correct (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Lahdee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    that there weren't different POVs, at least in his regulars lineup. And he wasn't a very good interviewer with his non-regulars. I remember once he had on this right wing military type who ate his lunch cause Olbermann had no idea what he was talking about. Thin, I thought, thin on the issues, and as time when by that seemed to be the case.

    Back before the primaries I kept wondering why he (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:32:50 PM EST
    didn't vary his on air expert guests.  He had the same people almost all the time, and they almost always agreed with him.

    I wondered why, say, Froomkin was never invited, but then I caught on and realized any digression from the KO line was not tolerated.

    I asked awhile ago if John Dean is on anymore--I enjoyed his commentary, but I began to notice that KO seemed to steer things to KO's outlook even with Dean. Feh. Didn't need that.

    Now, no KO, no Tweety--and two hours more for life and reading.


    after witnessing his performance during this primary.  I just don't think he is all that clever anymore.

    The fact that he bought into the spin about the Clintons - which was probably in part true but nowhere near what he and others described - brought me to the conclusion that he is kind of sucker - easily duped - and easily manipulated.

    I can't blame anyone for being a fool.  I can blame our current media environment and the conglomerates for producing and offering up so many of them though.  But, let's face it - the only reason people are really mad at Olbermann is that he was one of "our" fools and he became a disappointment.  The reality is that there are next to no really clever journalists or pundits on TV anymore.  That has pretty much been the status quo for sometime now.

    I saw that "shoehorn her way in" comment when it ran live.  All I could think was how stupid he sounded suggesting that anyone running as she did with the votes etc. was shoehorning was preposterous.  He sounded like the cool guy on the football team who was upset that some freshman could pass better than he could.  Invoking kewl kidz popularity over skill which is pretty much how this whole primary went.

    I won't even go into how pathetic these kinds of comments make Obama look in the end either.  I mean it doesn't exactly make your chosen candidate look "strong" when you say that they would be winning if they had no competition. lol  sheesh.

    They still don't get it. (5.00 / 10) (#134)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    Going after Hillary Clinton was never the problem. Hell, she's been a target for years. She's used to it. Those who voted for her, hella used to it.

    It was the accuracy of the allegations made against her that irked everyone - the RFK comment mind-reading, the taking her into a room comment, the "racist fairytale" fairytale, passport gate nonsense and all the undeniably SEXIST CRAP we heard and saw coming over their airwaves.

    MSNBC should probably start watching, I dunno, fricking MSNBC sometimes. They might learn a little something about their own network.

    And no, Phil. Ain't going back.

    Me either (none / 0) (#189)
    by Virginialass on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    There are plenty of places for me to go. CNN for one. Anderson Cooper 360. Of course I still like John Stewart.

    He was right. I used to be a view of Countdown but will no longer watch it.


    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:27:39 PM EST
    Loved Keith and never missed Countdown. Watching him abandon logic, reason and fact to go after Hillary every five seconds was more than a little heartbreaking.

    Phil seems to think we'll forgive him?

    Phil, everyone at one point  dated that person who went from wonderful to "who the hell am I dating?" seemingly overnight.

    Few, if any, stay with that person when it goes south. Countdown has gone south and I have lng since broken up with my delusional ex-boyfriend, Keith.  


    So true. (5.00 / 11) (#137)
    by Marco21 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06:19 PM EST

    His election night coverage was especially savagely biased. I thought I was taking crazy pills watching a "respected" journalist bash Hillary with reckless abandon to a degree he made Brokaw and Tweety pull back and blush.

    He is crazy. You'd have to be to have so much obvious hate of someone and think no one is going to notice it when you talk about said person on the tele.

    Olbermann knows what he is doing (5.00 / 11) (#143)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    He's building a following among the new progressives - the ones who are as fanatic as the far right fanatics. The progressive authoritarian core. If the Obama fad continues (and I say fad not to denigrate people who actually respect Obama, but to represent those who are simply following the movement) then Olbermann will be well placed to be the next Rush Limbaugh.

    When the GE is history, and if Obama doesn't (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    win, Olbermann will be instantly gone. He made the mistake of putting himself in a position of having only one note on the keyboard.

    I don't think so (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    He's in more trouble if Obama wins. If Obama loses, then he will become an icon of a movement that was cheated of it's rightful place in history by nefarious forces. Their movement is more likely to die if Obama is elected and they find out that Obama is what he is, not what they hope he is. As long as Olbermann can tap the dream, he is going to be one of their heroes. When the dream dies...he's going to find that his more cynical and reliable base doesn't trust him anymore.

    Griffin's message (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:18:12 PM EST
    is going to resonate very well with women who have been in abusive relationships.  How many times have they heard, "You'll be back 'cause you've got nowhere else to go, b!tc#!"


    It's generally subtler than that (5.00 / 6) (#194)
    by dianem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    The sexism in this campaign was not generally that blatant (although it was shocking that sometimes it actually crossed the line into just that). It was more of the variety that women get all the time. The feeling that if we act like men, we are too agressive, and if we act less aggressive, we are too passive. Essentially, no matter what we do we are wrong. Not always, but at critical junctures of our lives and careers, we are told that we need to 1) be just like men in order to succeed and 2) not be too much like men because if we are then we are too masculine.

    The message women got from this election is subtle, and many young women aren't offended because it's the message they've been hearing all their lives without even being aware of it: Don't be pushy, don't be too assertive, don't be dominant, don't be forceful, be feminine, be cheerful, know your place, and, above all, don't threaten the men. Never, ever, threaten their masculinity or their belief that they are dominant.


    I wouldn't watch MSNBC . . . (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    . . . if they paid me.

    cspan is a good alternative (5.00 / 9) (#181)
    by gram cracker on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:47:42 PM EST
    to commercial pundit shows.  I like to see the entire speech, debate, show, etc. without someone interpreting it for me and telling me what to think or feel.  

    During the primary I sometimes heard the pundits spin on a debate or speech before going back to watch the recorded event.  I remember more than once thinking did they hear/see the same thing I did?!

    Amazingly I do enjoy, even respect, hearing Pat Buchanan's take on this election cycle.  Even Karl Rove seems to be objective!  So much for global warming - hell must be freezing over!

    Oddly, that is very true (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:56:27 PM EST
    Karl Rove has been very interesting to listen to with his analysis of the race. He isn't spinning anything, just talking from a place of total understanding of the game plan.

    Buchanan is more often fair and balanced than he is somewhat out of touch.

    Never, ever thought I would agree with anything that came out of Rove.


    Karl Rove has been spinning (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    and sometimes when he says something, believe just the opposite.

    I saw him recently say, "it would be bad for Obama to choose Hillary as his running mate."   Before he could catch himself, he looked down and to the left -- a mark of lying.  He knows the polls indicate just the opposite.

    Take everything Rove says as calculated.


    Everyone I know has taken Olbermann (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Joelarama on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    off their TiVo season pass list.  There is real hatred for MSNBC, along the lines of Fox News.

    Countdown Demographic (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Bourges on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    We have nowhere else to go?  Please.  Keith Olbermann has driven many viewers away with his histrionics and they are never coming back.  Never.

    Another ex-Countdown fan (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by akaEloise on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:48 PM EST
    I used to watch Countdown every night, starting almost from the day it went on the air.  As a broadcaster myself, I recognize Keith's enormous talent.  I used to suggest our interns and younger reporters watch him to get a feel for how to read copy; he has terrific skills.  I never thought of him as a journalist -- Sandy Socolow is 100% spot on in the NYer article -- but he is a tremendous broadcast presenter.

    I probably recommended the show to a hundred of my friends and colleagues.  I liked the eclectic nature of the show, the segment with the dancing pigs and world's largest ball of string, the running jokes like "comedian Rush Limbaugh" and  "another (celebrity) story my producers made me cover".  I admired their persistence in covering the Plame story and Abu Ghraib when few other TV sources were.

    Keith's first Special Comment felt completely genuine to me and had tremendous impact.  But then he started cranking them out like clockwork and they lost the sense of outrage.  There was also a point -- I think just before Keith started posting on dKos himself -- where I began to feel that Countdown was taking a lot of cues on ideas and talking points from the front page at dKos.  As the primary season began, I found the show increasingly uninteresting.  It wasn't the anti-Clinton bias per se -- although I always liked her, she was not initially my favorite candidate.  It was that they would seem to devote most of a show to some triviality like the sniper-fire thing, for several days in a row.  Even if I agreed with it, why would I watch it?

    I haven't watched it now since March, I think.  And despite what Phil Griffin says, most professional broadcasters will tell you that when you lose an audience, you rarely get it back.  Maybe, if the reason you lost them was that they were temporarily watching American Idol, or your regular host was sick.  But if the essential qualities of your program make people want to change the channel?  Those people don't come back.

    BTW, the most revealing thing in the New Yorker article for me was that Keith actually gave a contribution to Bill Clinton while he was interviewing him.  That is absolute proof to me that Keith is not a journalist.

    After the Iowa Caucus (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by MKS on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Olbermann said he didn't believe that Hillary was even close to being finished.   He was the only one at MSNBC that had that opinion at the time.

    After the New Hampshire Primary, he reminded the others at MSNBC that he had been right.

    Somewhere between Nevada and South Carolina, he took a turn to Obama.

    Olbermann in general is too dramatic, too overwrought....I like it when he is wry; outraged, not so much.

    When he was at ESPN working with Dan Patrick, he became so wound up it just burned him out, as he has described it.

      The first time I saw the outraged KO as commentator was after the 1989 earthquake that collapsed portions of a double decker freeway in the Bay Area.  Olbermann was the local sportscaster at the CBS affiliate in LA.  He was outragaed that the World Series between Oakland and the San Francisco Giants was not going to be postponed--and he loves baseball.  What struck me was how extreme his reaction seemed to be; he was close to a rage and defiantly said he would donate a week's salary to the victims....

    KO loses perspective and overdoes it--and has been that way for a long time.  He is bright and has been educated as a journalist, having obtained a degree in journalism from Cornell.  But he lets his emotions get the better of him.        

    Yes, 'held fire' cause he's so restrained ... (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    ... and so many clung to the frail hope that a brave cultural leader would stride forth and take that formidable force down -- that was being pilloried every five minutes in every imaginable forum for the obscenity of running for office.

    And not sucking up the media yet leading with the voters.

    Step aside, people, this looks like a job for

    :: shirt rending ::


    No where else to go?! (5.00 / 6) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:13:36 PM EST
    lol!~ Oh, KO, you as a sports guy should know . . . it's baseball season! Games 'round these parts usually start around 7PM during the week . . .

    this "typical, bitter 'old' white woman" can find plenty of places to go at 8PM weekdays.

    Just sayin'

    hopefully this will accelerate the revolution (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    going on in the TV universe. There has been a revolution going on in how media is distributed. TV over the internet is moving like a raging fire. You won't hear about it on regular TV of course, but it's been happening for a while. And with this revolution in distribution comes a opening of new broadcasting/producing organizations as well.

    This doesn't mean new outlets will be any different than blog outlets for similar bigotry and lack of journalism. But what it will mean is even more choices and variety.

    So the idea of "no where else to go" is a sad, desperate delusion that sounds a lot like what the TV networks said about the new fangled cable stations that were being created 20 or more years ago. They're in for a rude awakening.

    does this also mean (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Turkana on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    you won't be reading his top-of-the-rec-list diaries at... ? for shame!

    change the media? (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by phoebecaulfield on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    It seems to me the 24 hour media is the problem.   It denigrates the conversation to nonsense and sound bites and so called experts.  They don't discuss policy or things of importance.  It is not just Hillary/or the left that is hurt by this media, it is us.  The news 24 hour media is not really fair to any of the candidates, they pick up stories good and bad, they seem to operate based on ratings.  Fox's coverage of the republican nomination was shown to strongly support certain candidates (Guiliani) and against others (McCain).  This is widely thought to be due to editorial control.

    Where is the media coverage of the Senate report on prewar intelligence?   Where is their real sensible review of the various platforms like health care, economics etc?  Where is the review of the press during the lead up to the war?

    Olberman is a talking head like Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and Lou Dobbs, they rile up people and get folks to watch them.  He has been this way for some time.

    I keep thinking that Journalism should be  licensed profession, with rules and ethics.  They should have a body that takes away you license if you are unethical and break certain standards (i.e., like doctors and nurses).  There should be rules against control of editorial content from owners and managers.   We need to revisit corporate control of the media as well.  

    It is a positive discovery for me that (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    Griffin said something.  Really, thank God someone said something!  How do you rein in your new found superstar swiftly and deftly when they have lost touch with reality without creating some sort of "scandal" during the primary?  Not that Keith's ego wouldn't have survived such a thing more than adequately, so I am beginning to agree that Griffin royally screwed up or failed to preform his job competently.  The aftermath of all this though.......a really really bad and botched situation.

    olbermann (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by skippybkroo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    i read somewhere in blogtopia and yes, i coined that phrase, that olbermann rated katie couric the worst person in the world because she called the press out on their sexism towards hillary.

    Party , Media Think We Have No Where Else To Go? (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    Recent Gallup polling spoke volumes about what's on voters' minds. People are more undecided since Hillary dropped out; it says that instead of voters being more sure of who they're going to support, they are less sure. We've had 15 mos of vetting with only 5 to go.

    But we also have a Democratic party and liberal media who think progressives are disposable; they can violate our trust, kick us around, but we've got no where else to go so they're not worried because they say we'll be back. We'll continue to watch MSNBC, continue to vote for a party who kicked one of their own to the door.

    If you take into consideration the public pulse,collectively it has the potential to take any one down in days, whoever and whatever, i.e. Oprah after she endorsed Obama lost some of her female audience.

    What's incredulous is that all of this is not a bigger media story, but the public pulse and some in the media who have an ethical bone left are sending schock waves nevertheless. The pulse is beating out, "They can't tell us what to think, how to vote, decide elections in our stead, they can't."


    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by makana44 on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 06:24:03 AM EST
    When someone is as openly biased as Olberman (and MSNBC in general), the only reason to watch is to have your own biases reinforced and your own back scratched; or conversely to become outraged and masochistically document the atrocities. The news is beside the point. What flavor do you want? Everyone knows where to get their own flavor.

    The saddest thing about Olberman is the embarrassment of watching an ego that huge. To fancy himself on the same scale as legendary newscaster Edward R. Murrow; to have hijacked the CBS newscaster's iconic "good night, and good luck" sign-off; to think that he has anywhere near the courage and integrity that made Murrow a true hero...it's sad.

    I remember Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Roger Mudd, and others who took the broadcasting of news as a solemn responsibility, as a true service to the citizens of this country, representing the fourth estate. I remember when you could trust the news, when rarely (for better or worse) was heard any opinion on TV; the appearance of non-bias being essential to credibility. I remember the excitement of the conventions and having the machinations on the floor explained to us. I remember the Apollo missions, the assassinations of President Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy -  times when the country came together and these newscasters truly helped us to understand, to celebrate, to mourn, and to heal. They were key pieces of everyone's memories of these events.

    Olberman is just another sign of the decadence the media. TV news is a joke, a farce, a shame, a pity - and to use an Olbermanish phrase - an abomination.

    Sad. That's how Olberman makes me feel. And quite a bit nauseus.

    speaking for yourself only? (4.95 / 21) (#44)
    by candideinnc on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    Oh, no you aren't.  It wasn't only the rampant sexism that has made the Clinton supporters angry.  As a male, my objections were to the undisguised bias and visious personal assualts on Clinton.  Anything she said was given the ugliest interpretation possible by Olberman and his crew.  I had thought there was hope for the MSM when Olberman appeared.  I was wrong.  His producers are wrong that we have no where else to go.  "Kill your TV."  I have.  

    I can kind of respect refusing to adulterate (4.85 / 7) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:14 AM EST
    his opinion in an effort to preserve ratings. That's some journalistic integrity. Of course, that said, his hatred of and attacks on Clinton were fairly outlandish. I'm one of those viewers he lost months ago. He's just a different side of the same coin as O'Reiley, and a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our media.

    I disagree (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:58:03 AM EST
    That may signal personal commitment to his own outrageous views, but it does not signal journalistic integrity. You misunderstand the phrase.

    Maybe the proper term (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by tree on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    would be "bloviating integrity"? Or is that another oxymoron?

    I think rather than journalistic (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    integrity, it more like "a foolish consistency [that] is the hobgoblin of small minds."

    Integrity? (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:27:40 AM EST
    Who has that these days?

    I mean really.  That's a quaint Modernist conception in a post-modern journalistic world.

    I bet you like Clement Greenberg!


    There basically aren't any American (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    journalists on t.v. Barely any in newspapers or magazines.

    I think that article is an accurate reflection. (3.00 / 2) (#126)
    by halstoon on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    I have been watching Olbermann since his days on ESPN, and even back then it was just like the article points out; he's very talented, and super smart, but not so likable. He's arrogant, and believes that his opinion should always carry the day. He rarely--if ever--admits to being wrong, but always knows when the other guy is.

    He may not be a nice guy, but KO is good TV; he understands that people love drama; they love conflict, and he's more than willing to engage in guerilla tactics to entertain his audience. Had he chosen Sen. Clinton over Obama, I sense that it would be the same story just reversed; Keith would have annoyed Barack's camp just as much. That's what he does, and it works.

    He just beat O'Reilly for the first time ever in the 25-54 demo (O'Reilly was on vacation), so we'll see how the new Clinton boycott works out. I think it might just increase his numbers. Some will watch to see him continue to needle Clinton, and some of her supporters will continue to go back, watching for the newest ourtrage.

     Nobody wants to miss the train wreck.  

    Good TV.... (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by suki on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    God, that's depressing.

    the train wreck in this case is msnbc (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:21:59 PM EST
    and yes i do want to miss it. the only half way decent show and moderator are now unfortunately no more.

    KO is the next BO (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    Having a devoted fan base can be great, but unless you can reach out beyond that base to get more viewers and newer viewers, then you will just lock yourself into a niche demographic and niche market.

    That may be a good strategy for AM radio, but broadcast and cable television will want more than that.  I hope that KO doesn't think that his current schtick is going to lead to promotions and job offers(outside of AM radio).


    I Like Olbermann Vicious (2.50 / 2) (#32)
    by Niffari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    It's his schtick. Usually he's vicious against the Republicans. However, he has found a convenient target in Clinton and some others who have taken umbrage with attacks on her. Katie Couric for one. I thought Olbermann's Worst Person designation for Couric was ridiculous.

    OTOH, I've also thought the accusations of "sexism" were thrown around way too casually by the Clinton camp and that some of the attacks, while mean and personal, were far from sexist. That said, I watch Olbermann almost every night because of his attacks on McCain. It's fun. Yes, he can be a jerk, but I feel that he evens out the playing field with O'Reilly a bit.

    I think the denials of sexism (5.00 / 20) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
    are signs of the malign acceptance of sexism and misogyny.

    Hell, even Frank Rich recognizes it.

    I think you may have a problem in that regard.


    Is this a compliment? (5.00 / 12) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:55:40 AM EST
    Yes, he can be a jerk, but I feel that he evens out the playing field with O'Reilly a bit.

    His is Bill O. to me. No difference as far as honesty, just opposite views. They are both disgusting. I can't think of anything that would make KO more mad...he's the new Bill O.


    Not a compliment, but accurate (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM EST
    He's more emotional than Bill O (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:13:46 AM EST
    KO rants from beginning to end on his program. Everything he comments/reports on has an element of angry emotion to it. I never watched him during the primary because I had already realized my shoulders were tense by the time his program ended. Then, I read a really creepy article about him on HuffPo and can no longer even stand the sight of his face, or the sound of his voice.

    Bill-O has more guests, more variety, and doesn't make my shoulders tight. I turn his program on in the background only because I want to up the ratings against KO. Maybe he's changed his delivery style, I'd never seen his program until about a month ago.


    KO is not a very good interviewer (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:00:18 PM EST
    IMO.  O'Reilly is (or at least can be) better, actually.  I thought O'Reilly's interview of Hillary was quite good and fair.  O'Reilly is a blowhard, but at least he has the guts to have dissenting voices on his show.  KO is all bluster, no b*lls.

    ko is no longer msbnc material (5.00 / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:26:34 PM EST
    and that is a stretch i know. he is awful, over the top and reaching totally unacceptable.

    Oh well (5.00 / 21) (#45)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:56:32 AM EST
    As long as the attacks were only mean and personal and not actually sexist, I feel better.

    The on-air bloviating is harmful to the democratic process, whether it fits into a neat "sexist" category or not. Jon Stewart had it right years ago when he went on Crossfire and asked Tucker Carlson to "Please stop. You're hurting America." It doesn't make it any better when it is coming from the left as opposed to the right. Because as Clinton supporters saw in the primaries, the hate turns easily on your own candidate when there are people needing to be entertained.

    The antidote to O'Reilly, Coulter and others like them is not to sling mud using our left hands. It's to be grownups and talk about the issues. Politics, if it is to work for the good of the people, needs to be less about entertainment and more about substance.


    Hillary isn't a Republican so why slander her (5.00 / 13) (#47)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    KO and MSNBC wanted to promote a particular candidate. Hillary has been working for progressive causes way longer than KO has been delivering his slander.

    I stopped watching KO and tweety a long time ago, and I suggest every one else do the same.


    i don't like vicous. i like fair and balanced (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    excluding the fact that it is fox's slogan. in fact he isn't even good at that. he(ko) is tepid and downright boring plus not truthful. you like that? fine

    Interesting (1.00 / 1) (#214)
    by liberalone on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    I don't believe that the media is any more sexist than it is racist/ homophobic/ xenophobic.

    I don't believe that Obama was any more vile towards Clinton than she was to him.

    I don't believe that the campaign of one woman is larger than the goals that liberals aim to achieve.  

    PLEASE read "Ain't I a Woman" (Sojourner Truth's speech at the 1851 Women's Convention) before you start talking about mistreatment and inclusion. A woman who was constitutionally deemed 3/5 human yet she continued to work within and beyond the traditional power structure.  Perhaps her mistreatment-- beatings, rape, selling her children simply doesn't compare.

    Strident, reckless (none / 0) (#207)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:38:04 PM EST
    attention getting, acting out, sells. Which is all the advertisers give a sh*t about.

    But, have no fear, The World is Flat and those profits eventually rain down in a golden shower (so to speak), on all of us.

    For the first time in 6 years....... (none / 0) (#211)
    by StevenT on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    I'm watching Fox. And the sole reason is because they are the fairest to Hillary Clinton. Looks like Fox has found a way to survive the 21st century.

    BTD, You rock. (none / 0) (#215)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM EST
    Thank you for saying this so I didn't have to.

    BTD, You rock. (none / 0) (#216)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:26:55 PM EST
    AG? If only...

    Good riddens Olberman (none / 0) (#219)
    by GregNYC on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:45:26 AM EST
    Stopped watching him a long time ago.

    No use for him and his nasty holier than thou spankings.

    keep writing (none / 0) (#221)
    by sas on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 08:09:24 AM EST
    Phil Griffin of MSNBC

    He still feels that things weren't really so bad, that his news team (or whatever you call the crap they dish out) was relatively unbiased.

    He also feels that the watchers will come back - after all, where else will they go?

    I wrote and told him I"m never watching again, and I'll watch FOX - so far they have been least biased....amazing, huh?  FOX of all networks....holy cow, how things change...

    Obama supporter who can't stand Olbermann (none / 0) (#222)
    by bowchikabowbow on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    Im 100% an Obama supporter but I got to say that I can't stand Olbermann anymore. He has become too partisan and then to say that there was no sexism against Clinton in the media is outrageous. I mean I'd agree with him if he was going after people who say Obama was sexist cuz I can't think of any instances where Obama was sexist but Chris Matthews and even Olbermann said some really sexist things about her. It shocked me to no end.

    Also, for the New Yorker article to suggest that Olbermann is the only guy that Clinton supporters can go to is ridiculous. Has the guy who wrote that crap ever heard of Dan Abrams? Abrams is definitely a liberal and fair to Clinton. He has done countless segments about media bias towards Clinton but he is fair and did segments about media bias against Obama over the endless coverage of his pastor. So, I would suggest that Clinton fans can watch him without wanting to puke.

    Obama 08!!!